I Want to Fit In

Politically Incorrect Social Studies

A Perfect World: Gun Control

Posted by iwanttofitin on March 19, 2007

In a perfect world there would be no crime, no death, no destruction, no disease, no famine, and a multitude of other “no’s”. We should all be out naked as we were at birth, running around, eating food that we don’t need to cook, having sex without consequences, birthing litters of children, and then eating each other, because I mean hey, we’re animals, right? But since we can’t have this supremely perfect and appetizing world to live in; we need the next best thing. We need gun control. An article I read on another blog here inspired me to write this.

No guns means no crimes. Or at least no deaths cause by these worthless pieces of death causing instruments. Who really needs a gun anyway? We no longer need to hunt for food. Go to the grocery store. We don’t need them for protection either. That’s the government’s job.

Let’s look at some beautiful examples of how awful and destructive it is to force guns on citizens. Guns, no doubt, destroy communities.

Those gun toting right wing wackos of Kennesaw, GA in the United States of America forced all households to own at least one firearm. How crazy is that? Look at the data. It shows what you’d expect with a bunch of firearms all over the place. No wait, it doesn’t. Read about it here. Kennesaw had a population of 5,242 in 1981, the year before the gun law passed, and had 4,332 crimes per 100,000 people. In 2005 Kennesaw had a population of 28,189 and only 2,027 crimes per 100,000 people. I don’t know about you but not only did the population explode, but the amount of crime committed didn’t explode with the population. It actually went down. Maybe gun ownership isn’t so bad after all. Also, as far as I know there have only been 3 murders since this law went into effect. Only one involved a gun.

I know this is only one example and it is a small one but since the law has been around for so long, and in a city where the population has exploded, it has merit.

Think about it this way. If you ban guns from citizens, you take guns out of their hands. Ok. That’s fair. You keep gun accidents to a minimum. That’s nice, but should we ban cars too because they kill people in accidents at a much higher rate than gun accidents? What about airplanes? If we had banned airplanes, 9/11 would never have happened and thousands of lives would have been saved.

So now, criminals who obviously don’t care about the law (they’re law breakers) buy guns on the secondary market and know that citizens are no longer armed. Free picking. Just the thought of someone able to defend themselves with a gun is deterrent enough for criminals. You have to remember, while criminals don’t care for other people’s lives, they still value their’s.

If a criminal were to enter a private bank with 10 people in it and knew they weren’t carrying guns, he would feel much freer to steal money. He might even shoot a few hostages through the whole ordeal. You wouldn’t feel safe knowing that there would be no one among you who possibly had a gun to stop this man.

I was at a gun show over the weekend. There were thousands of guns there for sale. I even wanted to purchase one but realized MY money would be better spent elsewhere. But the thought that entered my mind was that no one in their right mind would even think about committing any type of crime in a place like that. Think of the hundreds of people that could instantly arm themselves. Who wants to face odds like that?

Now, on the other hand it is known that every family (or even adult) is supposed to carry a gun, would that same robber make an attempt at robbing the bank knowing that multiple people are able and ready to defend themselves. Being armed is a crime deterrent. Hitler took over Europe because he knew European countries were not armed as well as he was. Part of how he was able to rule the Germans with an iron fist is because he confiscated all firearms. How can citizens revolt when they are not armed?

One only has to look at England for gun control failure. England has banned all firearm ownership in it’s country and now their crime rate is worse than that of the U.S.

In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

Now only outlaws in England have guns and they are rushing courthouses to free criminals on trial, shooting teens in the head for cellphones, and citizens get arrested for protecting themselves against criminals by using firearms.

So tell me, would you rather live in a well protected society? Or would you like to live in one where only the criminals are protected?


8 Responses to “A Perfect World: Gun Control”

  1. Keenan Wilkie said

    Lovely bit of sarcasm at first, but ultimately you miss the real concern, the real reason that banning guns makes sense.

    Until we ban guns — and I mean ALL civillian gun ownership — then how can any criminal invade a home, attempt a mugging or try to rape a seemingly helpless woman without fear?

    Really, without proper gun control, it won’t be safe for criminals to prowl the streets at night.

    That’s the real common sense answer to the opposition to gun control.

  2. I’m sort of confused at your response. Are you for or against banning guns? Also, could you be a little more clear with what “the real common sense answer to the opposition to gun control” is?

  3. nymph said


    until we live in a world where there are NO criminals, NO “black” or “underground” markets for criminals to buy guns, and NO motives for the use of guns against other people, i am FOR the citizen’s right to protect themselves and their family…

    until we can keep CRIMINALS from obtaining firearms, we should not be disarming civilians and leaving them vulnerable…laws are for the honest citizen to follow; rapists, murderers, and thieves just laugh in the face of them
    on a side note…i have a very good friend who adores guns. not just because of what they can do but this retard actually thinks they are beautiful lol…he spends hours cleaning his guns and taking pictures of them…he calls them his “babies” (i figure its probably because he was a military brat and hes probably seen quite a few guns in his day…he enlisted in the marines in january)

    and i know quite a few people who were raised in the “country” and love doing “outdoorsy” stuff (my daddy for example)…i watched that man kill, skin, clean, and cook so many animals, i should actually be a pro myself

  4. helmac said

    As a “Brit” I dread the day that Britain moves any way towards the wholesale owning of guns as reflected in American society. Britain is not perfect by any means but gun crime in Britain is relatively rare in comparison to America. I believe this is due to the residual “Wild West” mentality of a large section of American society and the misquoted “right to bear arms” which should apply to society as a whole, not every individual. The gun lobby has a lot to answer for.

  5. I found some statistics regarding Britain’s banning of firearms. In the 2 years after the ban went into affect, handgun crime increased 40%.

    Also, The official figures for gun crime in England and Wales in 2002/03 were announced in January 2004. There were a total of 24,070 firearm offences, the highest number of offences ever.

    April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

    Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.

    England’s rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America’s, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police.

    You can read about this and more in this article:

  6. Here are some U.S. statistics.

    Since 1993, the violent crime rate has decreased by almost 50%.

    The rate at which criminals used guns to accomplish their crimes held steady

    The number of people who were victims of all violent crimes except murder fell by 9% in 2001, sending the crime rate to its lowest level since it was first tracked in 1973, the government reported Sunday.

    Preliminary figures from another FBI report — gleaned from more than 17,000 city, county and state law enforcement agencies and released in June — reflected an increase in murders of 3.1% in 2001. (This is less than population growth so murders per 100,000 people is down)

  7. Oh and your argument that the right to bear arms applies to society as a whole versus individuals makes no sense. The Bill of Rights are rights that the “We the People” have and the government can’t touch. So if the right to bear arms isn’t for the government, and it is for society as a whole, as you say, then that would mean individuals bear this right. Anyway, it doesn’t matter. The Bill of Rights are individual rights.

  8. Britain is not perfect by any means but gun crime in Britain is relatively rare in comparison to America.

    Britain didn’t have a lot of gun crime even before guns were banned. The UK government did a hell of a job taking the guns away from law-abiding citizens. However they never explain to us how they’re going to prevent criminals from getting them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: